or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Wide (120mm+) skis for short skiers...Discuss.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wide (120mm+) skis for short skiers...Discuss. - Page 2

post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post
 

 

The idea of a skiing on 143mm skis at a resort makes my knees ache just thinking about it.

 

I have been told by someone who skis them they won't be my every day ski. As I ski on the East Coast, they will be a very specialized quiver ski, obviously. But when the snow is soft, they will float someone my size and since the soft snow gives, they shouldn't be that bad on the knees. On a day with a lot of variable conditions, they may not be a good choice, but I will have other skis with me to switch too. I am most curious how they will be in spring corn snow.  I get the most days on that kind of snow in the East. Also, on corn snow days, the mornings are often frozen, which could be a problem. I usually don't change skis during a single day, but with these, I my have to.

post #32 of 37
spindrift, you are always good at articulating civilly and thoughtfully your fat-ski thoughts in ways that make me think.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spindrift View Post

 

7) For those citing stance width as a big deal. It might be worth considering that 1 cm is less than half an inch - so a ski that is 15mm "wider" (say going from 100 to 115)  is 7.5 mm wider each side of the center. Or,  rounding up,  let's call it 1/3 of an inch. So the extra stance width you'd introduce by skis 15 mm wider at their widest (again, likely not the case with wider waisted modern skis) is a hair over a half inch total (between the two skis).

 

Another way to say this would be to say that if I had made my stick drawings to proper scale, it would probably be hard even to see the difference in leg angle without looking really closely. I think that's your point here. The absolute difference in body-ski geometry is measured in a few millimeters here and there when you are talking two skis that are only a cm or two different in width. Sure. That seems right. My argument is that you don't want to tell a boot fitter who is really on top of alignment topics, or the skier who has enjoyed the fruits of that fitter's work, that "a few millimeters" is nothing, or that it's barely detectable. On the contrary, most of us are all too familiar with the "princess and the pea" nature of very small changes in the geometry of how-foot-and-leg-meet-ski. 

 

On top of that, it may be important to note that, for many of us, when we are talking about what it means to go from a 100mm ski to a 115mm ski (to use your 15mm example) we are already dealing with a certain amount of strain that comes from having moved already from a natural stance on a 70mm ski to a slightly less natural one on a 100mm ski. So we're already at the point where a little more width is pushing us out of a comfort zone. In other words, adding 15mm to a 70mm ski is one thing; adding it to a 100mm ski may be a different thing, when it comes to how the skier perceives it.

post #33 of 37

Since I am one of those short people (5'4") on fat skis (119) about whom you're discussing, let me weigh in.

 

The 173 Shiro has pretty much become my every day ski. I have absolutely no issue getting them on edge in any snow condition, while the shorter length allows me to wiggle through tight trees and bumps and carve solidly without loosing any maneuverability, and the width easily floats my fat azz (190+), even at slow speeds. While there may be a bit of a stance difference between my Shiros and my Auras, it is so miniscule I haven't even made note of it. I have, however, noticed that I have to be moving much faster to get similar float on my 176 Kikus (original, 105 waist), but I'm not entirely sure how much of that issue in float is due to the difference in waist widths versus the lack of rocker in the Kiku. I guess I'll have more input on that come next winter when I can finally get my new rockered Kikus on the snow.

 

Should I be on the 183 Shiro? Probably. Would I lose some of the fun factor inherent in my shorter ones? Likely. In really cruddy snow, have I wished for the 183? Absolutely. Do my knees tire a bit faster on the wider skis? Yes, but I don't think that has any relation to my height.

post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklgirl View Post
 

Since I am one of those short people (5'4") on fat skis (119) about whom you're discussing, let me weigh in.

 

The 173 Shiro has pretty much become my every day ski. I have absolutely no issue getting them on edge in any snow condition, while the shorter length allows me to wiggle through tight trees and bumps and carve solidly without loosing any maneuverability, and the width easily floats my fat azz, even at slow speeds. While there may be a bit of a stance difference between my Shiros and my Auras, it is so miniscule I haven't even made note of it. I have, however, noticed that I have to be moving much faster to get similar float on my 176 Kikus (original, 105 waist), but I'm not entirely sure how much of that issue in float is due to the difference in waist widths versus the lack of rocker in the Kiku. I guess I'll have more input on that come next winter when I can finally get my new rockered Kikus on the snow.

 

Should I be on the 183 Shiro? Probably. Would I lose some of the fun factor inherent in my shorter ones? Likely. In really cruddy snow, have I wished for the 183? Absolutely. Do my knees tire a bit faster on the wider skis? Yes, but I don't think that has any relation to my height.

 

You forgot to mention weight. If I were stepped on by a woman in spike heels, I'd rather it not be Lindsey Vonn.

post #35 of 37

Post edited to add weight range, then. :rolleyes

post #36 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by volklgirl View Post

Post edited to add weight range, then. rolleyes.gif

Thanks! It actually matters a great deal. At 190, more surface area is certainly a plus. A 183 Shiro certainly would be in the appropriate size range. For a 105lb'er, not so relevant.
post #37 of 37
short person + deep pow + desire to surf
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Wide (120mm+) skis for short skiers...Discuss.